| Standpoint

September 2008

This was after the US had sent its third highest-ranking diplomat to attend the meeting – a major concession that yielded nothing in return. Iran’s diplomats appeared ready only to discuss the incentives they were offered, not to make concessions. Then again, why should they? The more Iran misbehaves, the more the West is ready to give.

Take Germany. Addressing Israel’s parliament in March, Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, declared that “Israel’s security is non-negotiable” and pledged German support for further sanctions against Iran. But while Merkel was in Jerusalem, her economics ministry back home was toiling to get a €100m (£79m) deal to have three liquefied natural gas terminals built for Iran by a German company.

What counts more, then: Merkel’s speech or German investment in one of Iran’s most strategic energy projects? True, the Chancellor distanced herself from the deal – but that does not cancel it. As for the rest of Europe, a new round of sanctions against Iran was finalised in Brussels after much bickering and much dilution in April. Then the EU waited two additional months to have the Council of Ministers approve it – giving Iran enough time to withdraw precious assets from European branches of an Iranian bank before the sanctions could freeze the funds. Meanwhile, Europe’s debate on how to implement the latest UN resolution against Iran has barely started.

What about the threat of military action against Iran’s nuclear installations? Several European and American leaders have repeatedly and strenuously indicated their opposition to such a possibility. Italy’s foreign minister said emphatically that an attack on Iran would be a “disaster” — only the latest in a long list of dignitaries to reassure Tehran that they have nothing to fear.

Then there are the much-ridiculed deadlines, which the West rarely enforces. The 2006 proposal was meant to stay on the table for a month. When Iran said no – two months after the deadline – the offer was left for it to reconsider. When it became clear that Iran did not intend to reconsider, the offer was improved.

Tags:

Like this article? Share, save or print using the icons below:

chris

October 10th, 2008
8:10 PM

The Iranian military is what secures the regime's control over the Persian people. Anti-regime groups cannot communicate or mobilize without getting ground into kebab. Three carrier groups and a few airborne units could, over time, dramatically diminish Iran's offensive capabilities. Strategically important regions would soon be out of reach and the anti-regime elements would flourish like a desert after a rain.

Anonymous

August 28th, 2008
8:08 PM

What an incisive piece! Years ago the handful of western scholars of Iran who had gotten over their astonishment at Iranian culture's gift of flattery recognized and wrote about built in duplicity of the culture. This duplicity is now married to the logical conclusion that Iran is immune from any threats - either because it is protected by the Islamic interpretation of God or because it is too clever for the rest of the world. Over the past decade the Islamic regime has used money and flattery, as well as threats, to silence that part of the Iranian diaspora that might have provided perspective and intelligence. The regime has picked up the theme of the great Iranian culture, and is now using this theme to discourage any meaningful punitive action for the flagrant political actions from nuclear arms, missiles and continuous violation of human rights. Dealing with Iran is like accepting the gift of a poisoned rose.

Post your comment

More Columns